Ah, but can you tell who is enlightened? And if someone was enlightened wouldn't they know better than to engage in actions that will obviously cause harm?

Yes it is extremly good question, you have to check quality and qualification of your zen teachers over there in your country.. are they real or are they foxes??? this I do not know.

why not, of course yes.. he would boil brains of those poor women. Attack was almost immediate, and he put in hell poor 'victims'... he was so rude! but wonderful wanted so much to liberate them from fixation of their own injuries and I,me obsession...

You keep spouting the same rhetoric which doesn't seem particularly grounded in reality. I'm going to step out and let other people respond. Maybe they can make more sense out of what you're saying.

Maybe, how can I know, I am not them.. by the way everyone here is spinning the same old thread of one's own stubborn opinions, right???Anyway good luck, it was very nice to have this conversation with you, I really mean it

So this is mine heroin..... she was a brave nun...I wanted to quote it before.. but was a little bit busy so now please read and learn some zen

It is from the 3rd most important monastery in Japan established in the end of the XIV c. I worked there sometimes on request of my family and friends... Eshun was SOOO big and great zen female personality...

Tales of Nun Eshun-niTales relating to a beautiful nun of the Temple have long been handed down from generation to generation. She was a younger sister of the founding priest Ryo-an Emyo. At age a little over 30, she asked her brother Emyo to be enrolled in the Temple as a nun. The priest gave her a flat refusal saying that Buddhism is not easy to deal with and not the world for a woman to be engaged. The sister's resolution was firm. To show how firm, she appeared before him with a pair of red-hot tongs and burned her cheek to demonstrate she would risk her life. She also said, "Why can't women do what men do?" Knowing her determination was unshakable, Priest Ryoan had no choice but to enroll her as a nun. He may have recalled the tale of Maha-prajapati, aunt of Sakyamuni who entered nunhood despite Sakyamuni's refusal.

Her departure as Nun Eshun-ni (ni denotes a nun in Japanese) began to pose a serious problem, however, among the young male priests in the male-dominated Temple. She was a woman of extraordinary beauty and voluptuous. Even the priests in the Temple who otherwise were supposed to be strictly abstinent were unable to resist temptation. Many came courting. One of them met her in person at the hermitage where she was living alone, and said, "I will do whatever you say if I can have an affair with you." She replied, "Come to my hermitage every night for the 100th day in a row. Your wishes will be answered on the 100th night." The young priest began to commute to her hermitage every night, rain or shine, just to report he was there and she acknowledged his visit every night. She may have thought he would give up halfway, but he made a trip for the 99th consecutive night successfully and it was now obvious he would make it. Having an affair is the last thing a nun is allowed to do, and she had no intention to behave anything immoral. She was put in a awkward position. Before the priest appeared on the 100th night, she had piled up firewood around her hermitage and confirming the priest's visit, she set it alight. Surrounded by the blaze, she killed herself in a sit-in meditation, or Zazen posture. Rather than breaking the nun's code, she chose death. Burning oneself to death is called Kajo in Buddhist term and there have not been many a case in the past, let alone in the case of nuns.

Another story goes like this. A young priest persistently wooed her. Out of resignation, she said to him one day, "This is not a proper place nor proper time. I will let you know as soon as an opportunity offers." The young priest was happy to hear it and looked forward to the chance, but it did not come soon. He grew wearily of waiting. Days later, all young priests were summoned in a hall for a meeting. This was the opportunity she had had in mind. At the end of the meeting, she appeared before the scores of priests, and began to undress. Now with no clothes on, she pointed to the priest who had been wooing her, and said, "Come over here. Your wish will be answered right here. Now, you can do to me whatever you want." The disgraced priest had to leave the Temple immediately.

Since there is no record on her daily behaviors, her false episode goes even further. At one point, Priest Ryoan sent the nun on an errand to Engakuji in Kamakura , where, as noted at the beginning of this page, he learned Buddhism when young. Her beauty had already been well known to the priests in Engakuji. They eagerly looked forward to her visit. On the day of her arrival, they waited for her in line. As she walked by the welcoming priests, one of them stepped forward and exposed his erected penis in front of her, and said, "Mine is as long as 90 centimeters. What about your vagina, show us yours, will you?" Unruffled, she said calmly," Mine is bottomless," and kept walking in stride.

A charming nun surrounded by young priests in abstinence seem to be an interesting theme for playwrights and painters like in the West. The nun's tales were dramatized and painted by many artists. Most of them are fictional and are Japanese versions of The Nun's Story. It is evident from the Temple's records, however, that the nun was younger sister of Priest Ryoan and was of rare beauty, and killed herself with Kajo in 1402 at age around 37. A Kajo stone, near where she performed Kajo, is preserved in the Temple's grounds.

The story though true is not consistent with all facts. Eshun died in Engakuji.. and she indeed died in a pyer, but not because she was desperate that is stupid and made up for dramas.. she knew perfectly the time of her death and ordered young monk to collect the wood, then she sat there and entered samadhi ordering him to set fire.. when he asked reverently if she does not feel hot, she answered that for her it is very cool, and only idiot may feel scorching hot...

For zen practitioner the brave and fearless mind is the basis of requirement... Here is not written, but when she wanted to practice zen her brother, one of the biggest zen masters in the history, opposed since was afraid, that she might be attacked by young monks, still horny. And then as a sign of her determination in front of him she took burning piece of would and burnt her face disfiguring it badly.. Then zenji gave up and admitted her to the zen community. However her beauty was still amazing causing her to have many situations with men... and due to her deteremination she was untouched, and humiliated often wooers

Matylda wrote:from mahanibbanasutta "Ananda, when I am gone, let the higher penalty be imposed upon the bhikkhu Channa."

"But what, Lord, is the higher penalty?"

"The bhikkhu Channa, Ananda, may say what he will, but the bhikkhus should neither converse with him, nor exhort him, nor admonish him."

What the Buddha is proposing is that Channa be completely ostracised from the Sangha, that sangha members not talk to him AT ALL, either to praise or to condemn him. Basically he is saying that Channa is reduced to persona non grata. For an (ex-) monk there can be no penalty higher than this. Complete and utter ostracision from the organisation that defined ever moment of their life. Now if we applied this rule to the case of the zen teacher we have been discussing...

Exactly and it is what I wrote before, cannot you read clearly??? and moreover here we have people not making ostracism of not talking about misbahavior, we have abrahamic condemnation of a zen master, am I right? with the crazy Christianized thinking in Western Zen... you can keep to your abrahamic believes, it is ok.. but there is nothing for you to look in zen. you can blame nihilism, but can tell you that you just fall into pit of eternalism without understanding the real purport of the scripture.. zen has long history of fight with scripture extremists who were blinded by the word, without knowing the meaning.

I guess you have never practice zen under enlightened master, so I can understand your opinions about the subject. defintely zen does not advocate nihilism neither denies the law of karma... By the way What Thinley Norbu Rinpoche said was nihilism of one's own views not the views of the dharma... so we have completely different perception of his words. your is pretty abrahamic

Matylda wrote:Exactly and it is what I wrote before, cannot you read clearly???

You took this to mean that we should do nothing whereas the Buddha was saying that the monks should do something and that something is ostracism. Do you know what ostracism is?

and moreover here we have people not making ostracism of not talking about misbahavior, we have abrahamic condemnation of a zen master, am I right?

No, you are wrong. Nowhere did I refer to or quote from an Abrahamic text, all the quotes were from Buddhist texts.

with the crazy Christianized thinking in Western Zen... you can keep to your abrahamic believes, it is ok.. but there is nothing for you to look in zen. you can blame nihilism, but can tell you that you just fall into pit of eternalism without understanding the real purport of the scripture.. zen has long history of fight with scripture extremists who were blinded by the word, without knowing the meaning.

It sems to me that you are a case of somebody who neither knows the scriptures, nor the meanings, and just throws words around without having a clue what they mean. Where did I state anything even remotely eternalist???

I guess you have never practice zen under enlightened master, so I can understand your opinions about the subject. defintely zen does not advocate nihilism neither denies the law of karma...

Nobody said it did.

By the way What Thinley Norbu Rinpoche said was nihilism of one's own views not the views of the dharma... so we have completely different perception of his words. your is pretty abrahamic

Actually, Thinley Norbu was talking about how (Western) people warp the Dharma in order to fit their materialistic and nihilisitc world views. We do not have different perceptions of his words, you quite clearly misunderstood what he was saying. You throw terms around constantly without even knowing what they mean. What is Abrahaimc about the view of the Buddha, because, if you bothered to read all the stuff I quoted, none of it was my view, it was all teachings of the Buddha. So what are you saying? That the Buddha was a Christian??? Do you know what you are saying?

jeeprs wrote:I don't accept the notion that 'Buddhism has no concept of sin'. It is post-sixties Western culture that has declared the notion of sin obsolete, as a consequence of the Sexual Revolution. And it is more than coincidental that many Western Buddhist groups have roots in the sixties counter-culture, for whom such notions as sexual propriety were 'hang-ups' and part of what had to be let go. I think it was assumed that Buddhism, because it was cool, was also cool about sexual mores, as indeed many Western Buddhist teachers are. The fact that many of the traditional sources were silent on such questions was interpreted it as complicity in that view. And at least one of the well-known Tibetan teachers to establish Buddhism in the US had a very laissez faire attitude to sexual morality - but how typical is that of the tradition as a whole?

In fact I think that traditional Buddhism, like all the traditional cultures, was, by modern standards, very conservative on questions of sexual ethics, and their silence on it is mainly due to the fact that it was not considered part of their role to comment on sexual relationships and practices. But the Dalai Lama has generally expressed a conservative approach on same sex relations, something which many Western Buddhists are very uncomfortable, even defiant, about. (This remains a controversy.)

As for 'sin', the ubiquitous term klesha, which is usually translated as 'defilement', would have to include at least some meanings of that word. I think the real divergence is between the Calvinist notion of 'original sin', from which one can only be redeemed by 'faith in Jesus' for which I agree that there is no direct counterpart in Buddhism. But you can't overlook the fact that the Buddhist diagnosis of the human condition is that it is, by default, charachterised by 'beginningless ignorance', avidya, which is, in some respects, a counterpart to ' original sin', although it is cognitive, rather than volitional. And among the older Buddhist texts, there are graphic depictions of the hell-realms, in fact Buddhism has a much more developed notion of hell than found in the Bible.

So I just don't accept this idea that Buddhism doesn't associate sex with sin. The early texts are full of warnings about 'the canker of sensuality' and 'the fetters of the senses'. Regarding sexuality as somehow exempt from this is a misreading of the teaching, in my opinion.

Ostracism - not talking to one, not even correcting one is actually not doing anything... here we have opposite situation. There is a lot of talking, wishful thinking that things change for better, almost call for a punishment... To make the point you miss all the time since you give only examples from lower vehicle not from the zen source... the lower vehicle was and is for pretty unskilled people rude to the marrow, for whom sex is devastating, will never become any means of upaya etc. so if someone is missing the meaning then it is not me

I have just mentioned that in all this situation of bashing teachers, even on lower level Buddha said to leave bad monks alone... the words about Chanda are exactly the same. We can express it in both ways, as doing nothing or doing effort of avoiding, you named it ostracism it is not in original Mahanibbanasutta, but one can make such interpretation in modern English.

If you want to impose on zen way lower teachings considered as teaching for particular not very intelligent individuals of very low morals and deviated thinking, then you are doing simply a mistake... here is zen forum, am I right? moreover there is a clear subject brought up by Sara called Sex Taboo's & applying Christianized thinking in Western Zen or am i wrong?

Yes in a way you are fatally eternalistic, since you stick only to one way of interpretation of dharma.. as there is no other or higher realm then shravakayana... then of course we can discuss endlessly coming to no conclusion... from zen point of view what you present is delusion of limited views. or extremes of hinayana view, which closes gates to higher vehicles... and at the same time zen is not denying karma, is not nihilistic by any possible way.

We are not talking here about general morals or basic teachings for certain individuals... we are talking about zen masters.. what do you know about meaning of zen master Greg??? of course you can say that zen dharma is bullshit, not buddhas teaching and so on.. it is up to you. But please consider that in this case i will not follow you but great being like Dogen who clearly stated from the traditional point of view about breaking vows etc. and his teaching was based on Nagarjuna... just go back in those posts and read what I have quoted from Shobogenzo. You may have different view,but I really do not care since you are not an enlightened zen master... your views could be simply corrupt from zen point of view. moreover you seem to know nothing from zen dharma, am I right?

Last edited by Matylda on Sun Feb 17, 2013 8:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Dan74 wrote:Matylda believes that the people who are the subject of the thread, the people who carry the title of a Zen master, are enlightened and free from delusion. "Emperors of the whole universe", I believe was her expression. So this precludes any further debate, because I don't think anyone participating here can claim such a title.

The real evil, according to her, is for the deluded students to judge the Zen master.

How can one debate with this attitude? And perhaps more importantly, why?

The sad thing is that it was precisely this belief that had enabled the abuse to go on for so long. Now we get a glimpse into the mindset and the culture that gave birth to it.

I do not know who is exactly subject of this thread.. no names were mentioned in this thread. Or I have missed something I picked up one or two names which I happened to come across.. and of koz could not support any of the opinions one can hear around.

Yes zen master is an enlightened being free from delusion. Do you think it is opposite? that disciples are not deluded and can check on the master? of course zen master is the master of the universe, how it could be different? Are you zen buddhist? Did you never meet an enlightened master? How it could be?...

Yes you are absolutely right, if student judges zen master it is real evil... evil to its very extreme and cuts the roots of goodness as we say in Japan what means the roots of buddha nature - how sad

Matylda wrote:Ostracism - not talking to one, not even correcting one is actually not doing anything...

You did not even bother doing a web search?

If you want to impose on zen way lower teachings considered as teaching for particular not very intelligent individuals of very low morals and deviated thinking, then you are doing simply a mistake...

Disparaging our Dharma brothers and sisters is how intelligent beings of high morality and with balanced thinking act?

Yes in a way you are fatally eternalistic, since you stick only to one way of interpretation of dharma.. as there is no other or higher realm then shravakayana... then of course we can discuss endlessly coming to no conclusion... from zen point of view what you present is delusion of limited views. or extremes of hinayana view, which closes gates to higher vehicles... and at the same time zen is not denying karma, is not nihilistic by any possible way.

What is eternalistic about Theravada views? What was eternalistic about the Dharmarakshita (a Mahayana teacher) text I quoted? Nothing! You are making things up to compensate for your lack of perspective.

We are not talking here about general morals or basic teachings for certain individuals... we are talking about zen masters.. what do you know about meaning of zen master Greg??? of course you can say that zen dharma is bullshit, not buddhas teaching and so on.. it is up to you. But please consider that in this case i will not follow you but great being like Dogen who clearly stated from the traditional point of view about breaking vows etc. and his teaching was based on Nagarjuna... just go back in those posts and read what I have quoted from Shobogenzo. You may have different view,but I really do not care since you are not an enlightened zen master... your views could be simply corrupt from zen point of view. moreover you seem to know nothing from zen dharma, am I right?

If all these teachers were as adept at displaying the twin miracle as they are at displaying their genitals to various unsuspecting (or in some cases willing) women then I would acknoweldge their mastery. I suspect though that their mastery is more in the category of someone like Casanova (slinking from bed to bed) rather than the category of Eshun:

Twenty monks and one nun, who was named Eshun were practicing meditation with a certain zen master. Eshun was very pretty even though her head was shaved and her dress plain. Several monks secretly fell in love with her. One of them wrote her a love letter insisting upon a private meeting. Eshun did not reply. the following day the master gave a lecture to the group, and when it was over Eshun arose. Addressing the one that had written her , she said: 'If you really love me so much, come and embrace me now.

Since you have obviously no clue about zen training, it is how it ends up with your views The discussion with you goes around just a word or single expression, then you try to ridicule, pretty funny way.. is this also deep understanding of dharma or just skill in arguments following others ways? you cannot play it with me you can play like this with yourself and redicule yourself, it will not cover up your complete ignorance about zen teachings

If one ought not make moral judgements - or any kind of conceptual demarcations - then on what basis can one deny 'Christianized thinking' as bad and promote liberal attitudes towards sexuality as good?

There is an implicit claim for universality here - but in fact it is deeply, deeply normative.

Anyway, I freely admit that I am quite weak on understanding the Sino-Japanese traditions, so perhaps it's best if I bow out here.

tobes wrote:If one ought not make moral judgements - or any kind of conceptual demarcations - then on what basis can one deny 'Christianized thinking' as bad and promote liberal attitudes towards sexuality as good?

There is an implicit claim for universality here - but in fact it is deeply, deeply normative.

Anyway, I freely admit that I am quite weak on understanding the Sino-Japanese traditions, so perhaps it's best if I bow out here.

Liberal attitudes? Well what is wrong with them, I just wonder? but I did not proclaim any of liberal sex or so... I may of course, but it is not the subject here. I read so called archives once.. not all it was just sickening.. and one who claimed to be zen teacher in America spent his life chasing after another, Japanese, for his sexual behavior... then such crusade made me think what is wrong with all those people? are they sane??? then the most famous legacy of the crusader knight, or some call him zen pioneer is his obsessive archives full of his own disturbing emotions... is it what was left for posterity as most famous legacy of this man?

Well I know someone much older then me who was student of this pioneer, and asked him straight about the teacher.. then he told me story, when one of the married friends of the crusader took to the center a hooker and had sex there with her, and it was too much for the members, who were present there.. so the man who told me the story was a manager of the center at that time and kicked him gently out, when the pioneer heard about it, got furious with the manager of the center, since the hooker guy was his good friend and somebody mentioned in one zen bestseller in the us. so then I could see something like double standards... on one hand there is Japanese having sex and was a subject of campaign, and the other American, a friend but it was all ok

Moreover the American zen pioneer is frequently quoted as the moral guard but in fact was just using double standards, and was very good in bashing others and finds many admirers ... do not you think that it is all strange???

I have no idea if it is a call for normativity, but I try to show the other side of the coin... anyway zen is a subject of many many misunderstandings in the West.... by the way Chinese and Japanese traditions are pretty different in fact.

It's titled Sex Taboo's & applying Christianized thinking in Western Zen. However, many of the posts here have demonstrated that there is quite a bit of Easternized Dharma thinking being applied to Western Zen.

However, it seems that the argument has now shifted and that true Zen is free (or should be free) from being conceptualized either by a Abrahamic thinking or Eastern Dharma thinking, i.e., the precepts don't apply to Zen masters or Enlightened Zen masters. From those in the know, it appears Zen falls along a similar continuum as Crazy Wisdom and the like.

If this is the case, I think the title of this thread is no longer applicable to what's being discussed.

tobes wrote:If one ought not make moral judgements - or any kind of conceptual demarcations - then on what basis can one deny 'Christianized thinking' as bad and promote liberal attitudes towards sexuality as good?

There is an implicit claim for universality here - but in fact it is deeply, deeply normative.

Anyway, I freely admit that I am quite weak on understanding the Sino-Japanese traditions, so perhaps it's best if I bow out here.

Liberal attitudes? Well what is wrong with them, I just wonder? but I did not proclaim any of liberal sex or so... I may of course, but it is not the subject here. I read so called archives once.. not all it was just sickening.. and one who claimed to be zen teacher in America spent his life chasing after another, Japanese, for his sexual behavior... then such crusade made me think what is wrong with all those people? are they sane??? then the most famous legacy of the crusader knight, or some call him zen pioneer is his obsessive archives full of his own disturbing emotions... is it what was left for posterity as most famous legacy of this man?

Nothing is wrong with liberal attitudes to sexuality - I endorse precisely such an attitude.

Moreover, I endorse it against conservative and puritanical attitudes.

But the point is that when I endorse it, I am quite explicitly defending one normative attitude against others.

I know that I am entering normative terrain in doing this.

What I find deeply problematic on this thread, is the attempt to defend a particular normative attitude against other particular normative attitudes, whilst simultaneously denying the possibility that anyone should have normative attitudes.

It is a little absurd.

You can't have it both ways: if forming moral judgements is the problem (and it has been consistently argued to be so) - then one cannot form the moral judgement that Christianized ways of thinking are bad or problematic in some way (and that implicitly, liberal-tolerant-post 1960's attitudes are good).

I think one either has to genuinely commit to a non-conceptual, non-discursive mode of being - which would clearly imply not getting on internet boards to establish and defend particular normative values.

Or, one can enter the terrain of discourse and accept that conceptual judgements are part of that territory - which would clearly imply that you have a normative position and that you grant that it is acceptable for other people to have a normative position.

In short: if you're going to defend a normative position (and that's fine, wonderful), it's not wise to do so by denying the grounds for normativity.

It's titled Sex Taboo's & applying Christianized thinking in Western Zen. However, many of the posts here have demonstrated that there is quite a bit of Easternized Dharma thinking being applied to Western Zen.

However, it seems that the argument has now shifted and that true Zen is free (or should be free) from being conceptualized either by a Abrahamic thinking or Eastern Dharma thinking, i.e., the precepts don't apply to Zen masters or Enlightened Zen masters. From those in the know, it appears Zen falls along a similar continuum as Crazy Wisdom and the like.If this is the case, I think the title of this thread is no longer applicable to what's being discussed.

I think we somehow try to make effort to continue the topic... Sara, the real author, greg, others and me included somehow for the better or worse try to make something out of it...As for zen one has to say, that all levels of precepts are applied.. then as for the zen master, one is supposed to be a perfect embodiment of the precepts, but ultimately the buddha nature precepts are most important and that understanding is applied. Now we have what greg brought up, with strong moralistic touch.. yes it is important in zen specially when one teaches the lay folk, but not for actual practitioners. Of course real practitioner by real I mean gifted who are capable to follow the true zen path not just its resemblance or fake copy...

Going through the levels of accomplishment what is most important are great bodhisattva vows, and samayas to start from with deep understanding of bodhicitta, and finally buddha's samaya of buddha nature vows, for which buddha nature is their original source... they are called vajra vows or pledges, since they are indestructible and stainless, what is clearly explained during the prediction of buddhahood and buddha lineage blessing, mostly sort of secret when it is well explained... as for the zen master since he has to have complete insight into innermost instructions called JI SHO I he should become great vessel of precepts knowing how to skillfully apply upaya in accordance with mind of the student and conditions to bring one as soon as possible to liberation... one can put it looking from outside that the precepts don't apply to Zen masters or Enlightened Zen masters. but it is not what is taught. Concerning Crazy Wisdom it is not known in Japan, I mean the term... but as I said with the eye of wisdom one should be extremely skilled in JI SHO I and be able to apply method according to the circumstances...

In fact such master should be most ethical or moral,what I mean by moral represents the 3 kayas fully being vessel of Vairochana Buddha, however what I mean here by moral it is not always the meaning common humans like us may try to apply or understand... it goes completely beyond social morality, and moral would mean here also the vow to liberate all beings, by any costs...

I have no idea what is understanding of zen in the West, I tried to figure out but it is very unclear to me... what I wrote is basically true to soto zen tradition in Japan but well followed also by rinzai, since the topic was well exposed by XX century soto master, and is very appreciated by rinzai roshis as well. however there are hundereds of recorded teachings on the topic... once I counted and it was well over 200 works. I am sorry in Jpanese or Chinese dharma language never seen anything in English....

Nothing is wrong with liberal attitudes to sexuality - I endorse precisely such an attitude.

Moreover, I endorse it against conservative and puritanical attitudes.

But the point is that when I endorse it, I am quite explicitly defending one normative attitude against others.

I know that I am entering normative terrain in doing this.

What I find deeply problematic on this thread, is the attempt to defend a particular normative attitude against other particular normative attitudes, whilst simultaneously denying the possibility that anyone should have normative attitudes.

It is a little absurd.

You can't have it both ways: if forming moral judgements is the problem (and it has been consistently argued to be so) - then one cannot form the moral judgement that Christianized ways of thinking are bad or problematic in some way (and that implicitly, liberal-tolerant-post 1960's attitudes are good).

I think one either has to genuinely commit to a non-conceptual, non-discursive mode of being - which would clearly imply not getting on internet boards to establish and defend particular normative values.

Or, one can enter the terrain of discourse and accept that conceptual judgements are part of that territory - which would clearly imply that you have a normative position and that you grant that it is acceptable for other people to have a normative position.

In short: if you're going to defend a normative position (and that's fine, wonderful), it's not wise to do so by denying the grounds for normativity.

[/quote]

Well let me say like this... if one engages in zen practice, then mostly after some time one receives so called JUKAI... this is very important, for many many reasons. First to become Buddha disciple, second to be able to receive most important teachings, third to receive blessing of the Buddha lineage and protect it well... this is sort of very private thing but very important..

In Jukai we have 5 precepts relating to the outer action, however they have different meaning finally, and the root text is in KYOJUKAIMON, the outer text is in Brahmajala. Out of the 10 the second set of 5 is about inner set of mind of the bodhiattva who has developed in bodhicitta and samaya... here comes the point... there are one after the other which bounds us to bodhisattva sangha, and most important to honshi, which Tibetans call root teacher, one can translate as well as original teacher or root master etc. since there are 16 precepts, the first 3 determine the rest, and number 16th closes the whole circle in relation to first 3.. the first three are triple refuge in triple jewel of the 3 kayas.. the last one is taught to be the 3 jewels of nirmanakaya, represented by honshi... actually he is that nirmanakaya from whom we do receive refuge, and the last set of 5 says not to denigerate 3 jewels... now if one engaged in zen practice, received jukai from honshi and gets into trouble, how is going to uphold the samaya??? I wonder...

This what from logical or intellectual point of view seems to be illogical or irrational, is not at all in the light of receiving full zen precepts... this is so important.. I never see any slightest consideration to it. Not in the West... greg calls it nihilism, that is sort of nice but it is not so from the zen standpoint. hmmm what would you do then?